EBA Updates 2026

Key dates

2026-11-06

EBA publishes its policy statement on the post-consultation direction of the supervisory reporting simplification package.

2026-12-01

EBA is expected to publish the final report on the draft ITS package; the precise publication date was not specified.

2026-12-31

EBA expects to publish guidance on designing and making supervisory and resolution data requests by the end of 2026; the precise date was not specified.

2027-01-01

Firms should take into account the EBA consideration on application of the FRTB from this date during the transition.

2027-01-01

The EU-wide public repository of supervisory and resolution data requests is expected to become operational during Q1 2027; the precise date was not specified.

2027-06-30

The EBA expects to present further proposals on reporting change management in the first half of 2027; the precise date was not specified.

2027-12-01 Deadline

First reference date for the new supervisory reporting requirements, subject to finalisation, Commission adoption and the precise legal text; the announcement specifies December 2027 but not a day.

2028-12-01 Deadline

Expected reference period for deferred liquidity, asset-encumbrance, supervisory-benchmarking and ESG reporting changes; the announcement specifies December 2028 but not a day.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should continue submitting currently applicable supervisory reporting templates until the revised ITS and technical package are legally adopted and applicable, rather than treating the announced simplifications as immediately effective.
• Compliance and regulatory-reporting teams may wish to preserve existing reporting processes for operational-risk losses while removing or suppressing only data affected by the new granular operational-risk taxonomy, consistently with transition instructions.
• Institutions participating in credit-risk or IFRS 9 benchmarking should continue using the 2026 ITS on supervisory benchmarking reporting during the transition and confirm whether they remain within the relevant benchmarking population.
• Firms should assess the impact of the 1 January 2027 FRTB implementation position on reporting, capital, data lineage and systems, including whether existing interpretations need to be revised once the EBA consideration is final.
• Reporting owners should maintain separate implementation workstreams for requirements expected from December 2027 and deferred areas expected from December 2028, including liquidity, asset encumbrance, benchmarking and ESG reporting.
• Firms should monitor the EBA final ITS report in December 2026, the Commission adoption process and the technical package expected in early 2027, including the data point model, taxonomies and validation rules.
• Institutions may wish to inventory national and supervisory data requests and identify duplicative submissions in anticipation of the EBA data-request guidance and EU-wide repository.
• Change-management plans should account for possible revisions to templates, frequencies, thresholds, validation rules, reporting ownership and consolidated-level data aggregation once the final technical package is available.

What changed

The final package, scheduled for publication in December 2026, will further simplify reporting templates, reduce collateral, stress-testing and ESG data, remove selected reporting thresholds, reduce reporting frequencies and align reporting more closely with disclosure requirements. Credit-risk and IFRS 9 benchmarking reporting will be integrated into the supervisory reporting framework, with streamlined IFRS 9 requirements and greater emphasis on consolidated-level reporting.

Key dates

2024-07-09

Directive (EU) 2024/1619 (CRD VI) entered into force, introducing or strengthening governance requirements including responsibility mapping and a dedicated framework for third-country branches.

2025-01-01

The CRD VI banking package began applying according to the EBA consultation materials, with the revised Guidelines intended to support implementation of the updated framework.

2026-11-05

The EBA published the final revised Guidelines and the final report on internal governance.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to identify the competent authority’s expected adoption or comply-or-explain treatment once the final Guidelines are translated and formally notified, because no application date is specified in the published final report.
• Firms should consider performing a gap assessment against the final provisions on management-body responsibilities, senior-management and key-function-holder role statements, responsibility mappings, reporting lines, organisational structures and internal-control arrangements.
• Institutions may wish to review board and committee terms of reference, chair and executive-role combinations, conflict-of-interest registers, recusal controls and escalation procedures against the clarified expectations.
• Third-country-branch operators should consider mapping the new branch-specific governance requirements to the local branch manager, head-office governance, risk management, internal control, oversight and reporting arrangements, using the proportionality available in the final text.
• Firms should consider checking consistency between internal-governance documentation and DORA-related ICT risk, operational resilience, business-continuity and third-party-risk arrangements.
• Groups may wish to determine which entities fall within the Guidelines and whether responsibility mappings should be maintained at entity, branch and group levels, documenting the rationale for the chosen scope.
• Compliance teams may wish to retain evidence of proportionality assessments based on size, nature, scale and complexity, rather than removing governance controls solely because the final Guidelines are less granular than the consultation draft.
• Firms should monitor publication of the final Guidelines in all EU official languages and subsequent national competent-authority communications before setting internal implementation deadlines.

What changed

The Guidelines clarify the responsibilities of the management body, senior management and key function holders, including documented statements of roles and duties and a mapping of responsibilities. They address organisational structures, management of conflicts of interest—including situations where the chair also has executive functions—and key elements of internal control frameworks. They introduce or clarify governance expectations for third-country branches under CRD VI, with greater proportionality than in the consultation draft.

Key dates

2026-03-04

The European Commission requested technical advice from the ESAs on the review of Article 8 Taxonomy disclosures.

2026-10-29

The EBA published its final technical advice and submitted its report to the European Commission.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams should treat the publication as forward-looking technical advice and should not cease reporting the Fees and Commissions KPI, Trading Book KPI or other existing disclosures unless and until the Commission adopts applicable amendments or transitional measures.
• Firms should map current Taxonomy data lineage, controls, templates and calculation logic against each proposed change so that implementation can be accelerated if the Commission follows the EBA advice.
• Banking groups should assess how parent-level KPIs and material secondary-activity KPIs could affect consolidation methodologies, entity-level data ownership and audit trails.
• Investment firms should inventory fees, commissions and other services currently included in the relevant KPIs, particularly capital-markets-related services, and model the effect of the proposed narrower approach.
• Credit institutions should review Green Asset Ratio template production and identify duplicated or low-value data points that may be removed or harmonised in a future delegated act.
• Firms should monitor the Commission’s review of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2178, the related Omnibus simplification measures and any final ESA or Commission guidance before updating policies, public disclosures or regulatory reporting systems.
• Legal and regulatory-change teams may wish to engage with the Commission consultation or legislative process and preserve evidence supporting current reporting interpretations during the transition.

What changed

The EBA recommends removing the Fees and Commissions KPI and the Trading Book KPI from Taxonomy disclosure requirements. It proposes simplifying the investment firms’ other-services KPI, including capital-markets-related services, and aligning grandfathering provisions with Regulation (EU) 2023/2631 on European Green Bonds, but only for bonds issued under that Regulation. The EBA advises against introducing the operational expenditure KPI of non-financial undertakings into financial undertakings’ KPI calculations.

Key dates

2026-10-14

The EBA announced that USDC issued by Circle Internet Financial Europe SAS had been classified as a significant EMT under MiCA.

2026-11-12 Deadline

Dual supervision of USDC begins: the EBA assumes direct responsibility for own funds, reserve of assets, liquidity requirements, and recovery and redemption plans, while the ACPR retains specified governance and organisational responsibilities.

Suggested considerations

• Circle and its regulatory counsel should map existing own-funds, reserve-of-assets, liquidity, recovery, and redemption controls to the EBA’s supervisory expectations and establish clear evidence and reporting channels before 2026-11-12.
• Circle should confirm the allocation of responsibilities between the EBA and ACPR, including supervisory contacts, escalation procedures, information requests, and documentation ownership for prudential and organisational matters.
• Crypto-asset service providers should reassess their USDC due diligence, product governance, liquidity, redemption, custody, safeguarding, and operational-risk controls in light of the significant-EMT designation.
• Firms using USDC should identify exposures in client assets, settlement, treasury, collateral, and payment flows and assess whether updated counterparty, liquidity, concentration, and business-continuity assessments are appropriate.
• Compliance teams should monitor EBA and ACPR communications, supervisory-college activity, and any subsequent guidance or requests concerning significant EMT reporting and recovery or redemption planning.
• Firms operating across the EU and United States should review information-sharing, incident-notification, and cross-border supervisory arrangements, noting the EBA’s memorandum of understanding with the New York State Department of Financial Services.

What changed

USDC will be subject to the MiCA framework for significant EMTs from 2026-11-12. The EBA will assume direct supervisory responsibility for own-funds requirements, the reserve of assets, liquidity requirements, and recovery and redemption plans; the ACPR will continue supervising governance, qualifying holdings, fit and proper assessments, outsourcing, and conflicts of interest. Under MiCA Articles 56 and 43(1), an EMT is classified as significant where at least three significance criteria are met during the applicable reporting periods.

Key dates

2025-12-03

The EBA launched its consultation on the draft amendments to the CSD prudential RTS.

2026-03-03 Deadline

The EBA consultation closed.

2026-10-12

The EBA published the Final Report and submitted draft amendments to the European Commission.

Suggested considerations

• Banking CSDs and designated credit institutions should map existing and planned cash, deposit, payment and foreign-exchange services against the CSDR Refit permissions and the draft RTS risk-management and notification framework.
• CSDs should assess whether providing or receiving these services creates additional intraday credit, liquidity, settlement, counterparty or concentration exposures, including exposures arising through foreign-currency settlement and increased inter-CSD interconnectedness.
• Compliance and regulatory-policy teams should compare current prudential policies, risk limits, management information, reporting and public-disclosure processes with the draft RTS once the EBA draft text has been reviewed in detail.
• Firms should monitor the European Commission's endorsement, any amendments made during adoption, publication in the Official Journal and the eventual application date before treating the draft requirements as binding.
• CSDs and designated credit institutions may wish to engage with their competent authorities early on the expected supervisory notifications, information flows and governance for arrangements involving participants of another CSD.
• Regulatory inventories and internal legal references should be updated for the amended CSDR terminology and relevant CRR changes after the final delegated act is adopted.

What changed

The draft RTS update the prudential framework under Article 59(5) of Regulation (EU) No 909/2014 (CSDR) for monitoring, measuring, managing, reporting and publicly disclosing credit and liquidity risks, including intraday risks. They address arrangements under which a banking CSD provides banking-type ancillary services to another, or designating, CSD, including cash accounts, deposits and payment services involving cash and foreign-exchange transactions, with particular attention to the effect on the banking CSD's risk profile and to notifications required by supervisors.

Key dates

2026-08-26

EBA consultation launched and consultation period opened.

2026-09-25 Deadline

Deadline to register for the EBA virtual public hearing, at 16:00 CEST.

2026-09-29

EBA virtual public hearing from 10:00 to 12:00 CEST (Paris time).

2026-12-31 Deadline

Deadline for submitting consultation responses to the EBA, at 23:59 CEST.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance and operational-risk teams should obtain and map the consultation draft against Article 323(1), points (a) to (h), of the CRR and identify requirements that would require changes to policies, committee mandates, controls or management information.
• Institutions should determine their business indicator and assess whether it is below the proposed EUR 750 million proportionality threshold, while treating that threshold as proposed rather than final.
• Firms should inventory operational-risk data sources, loss-event thresholds, taxonomies, reporting processes, validation controls and audit coverage, and assess whether data granularity is sufficient for the proposed framework.
• Management-body and senior-management responsibilities should be compared with existing governance arrangements, including the independence, authority and resourcing of the operational risk management function.
• Firms should assess alignment between the proposed RTS, CRR3 operational-risk capital and reporting implementation, the EBA Guidelines on internal governance and DORA, avoiding duplication or gaps for ICT-related risk.
• Affected stakeholders should consider submitting comments to the EBA by 31 December 2026; compliance teams may wish to coordinate responses with risk, finance, internal audit and industry associations.
• Stakeholders wishing to participate in the EBA public hearing should register by 25 September 2026 at 16:00 CEST and prepare questions on proportionality, data granularity, thresholds, reporting frequency and implementation timing.
• Institutions should monitor the EBA’s final draft, the European Commission’s endorsement process and the eventual application date before treating the consultation text as a binding requirement.

What changed

The proposed RTS would give detailed effect to Article 323(1), points (a) to (h), of the CRR by requiring three framework components: governance arrangements, an operational risk management process and an operational risk assessment system. They clarify responsibilities of the management body, senior management and the independent operational risk management function, and address operational risk data and taxonomy, the business indicator component, reporting, validation and audit. ICT risk requirements are intended to remain governed primarily by Regulation (EU) 2022/2554 (DORA).

Key dates

2026-08-25

EBA launched the consultation on three draft RTS.

2026-09-25 Deadline

Deadline at 16:00 CEST to register for the EBA virtual public hearing.

2026-09-30

EBA virtual public hearing scheduled from 10:00 CEST.

2026-11-25 Deadline

Deadline for submitting comments on the consultation.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should assess whether their solo and group-level asset populations capture all entities and activities covered by the CRD amendments, including the potential effect of EU branches and consolidated group assets.
• Compliance and finance teams may wish to reconcile the proposed threshold methodology against regulatory reporting, audited financial statements and internal management information, using a rolling 12-month monitoring process where relevant.
• Investment firms above EUR 5 billion should review the draft reporting templates and instructions and identify data, governance, validation and submission gaps before the RTS become applicable.
• Firms near the EUR 30 billion threshold should model the consequences of credit institution authorisation, including CRD and CRR application, supervisory engagement, capital and liquidity requirements, governance expectations and implementation timelines.
• Groups potentially affected by the group test should consider submitting comments on the geographic scope of assets, treatment of branches, consolidation methodology and any disproportionate effects on cross-border business models.
• Potentially eligible firms may wish to prepare evidence against the proposed waiver factors and engage early with their competent authority, while recognising that a waiver is discretionary and not guaranteed.
• Stakeholders wishing to participate in the EBA public hearing should register by the stated registration deadline and firms wishing to influence the final RTS should submit consultation responses by 25 November 2026.

What changed

The EBA is revising its draft RTS following the 2024 amendments to the Capital Requirements Directive, including clarifications on which entities and assets must be included in the threshold calculation at solo and group level. The package addresses the methodology for calculating total assets against the EUR 30 billion threshold, reporting requirements for investment firms whose total assets exceed EUR 5 billion under Article 55(5) of the Investment Firms Regulation, and the factors competent authorities must consider when deciding whether to grant a waiver under Article 8a(7) of the CRD.

Key dates

2026-03-01

EBA central validation function for pro forma initial margin models under EMIR became operational

2026-08-05

Publication date of the EBA consultation on the reporting framework for validation and monitoring of ISDA SIMM

2026-11-02 Deadline

Deadline for submission of comments to the EBA consultation on ISDA SIMM reporting

2026-12-31

Indicative target for EBA adoption of a Decision establishing the collection of relevant information for ISDA SIMM validation reporting by end of 2026

2027-03-31

Expected release of the final EBA technical package version 4.4, Phase 2, incorporating the new reporting requirements

2027-12-31

Expected first reporting reference date for ISDA SIMM-related information under the new framework

2028-03-31

Expected first quarter of 2028 window for collection of initial ISDA SIMM validation and monitoring data based on the December 2027 reference date

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review the consultation paper, IMMV reporting instructions and templates to understand the proposed data fields, frequency and proportional thresholds for ISDA SIMM-related reporting under EMIR.
• Firms using or planning to use ISDA SIMM for non-centrally cleared OTC derivative initial margin calculations should consider whether they will fall under the more intensive or lighter reporting category based on the significance of their OTC trading activity and assess system readiness for the expected December 2027 reference date reporting in Q1 2028.
• Risk and collateral management functions may wish to map the proposed reporting requirements to existing SIMM backtesting, model performance, risk factor sensitivity and margin monitoring processes to identify gaps and necessary enhancements.
• Regulatory reporting and IT teams should consider planning for integration of the new IMMV reporting templates into their infrastructure, taking into account the incorporation of these requirements into the EBA technical package version 4.4, Phase 2 and the planned final technical release in March 2027.
• Legal and regulatory affairs teams may wish to assess the implications of Article 11(12a) EMIR and EMIR 3 for their use of pro forma initial margin models, including governance around EBA’s central validation function and associated fee obligations, and prepare internal feedback on the consultation by the 2 November 2026 deadline.
• Firms intending to rely on ISDA SIMM should consider engaging with the consultation process to comment on the proportionality of the proposed reporting frequency and content, especially where OTC trading activity is limited but compliance costs could be significant.
• Supervisory liaison teams at affected groups may wish to coordinate with competent authorities to understand how the EBA’s data collection will be used in authorisation and ongoing supervision of ISDA SIMM-based initial margin models.

What changed

The consultation sets out a proposed standardised reporting framework for counterparties seeking validation to use ISDA SIMM as a pro forma initial margin model under Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (EMIR) as amended by Regulation (EU) 2024/2987 (EMIR 3). From 1 March 2026, the EBA acts as the central validator of the elements and general aspects of pro forma initial margin models pursuant to Article 11(12a) EMIR, and this proposal defines the information that must be submitted on a regular basis to enable validation and ongoing performance monitoring.

Key dates

2026-06-04

European Commission adoption of the 3rd FRTB Delegated Act under Article 461a CRR modifying own funds requirements for market risk for a three-year period

2026-08-03

EBA publication of no-action letter on the trading/banking book boundary and internal risk transfers, and technical considerations on FRTB application

2027-01-01

Start of modified calculation of own funds requirements for market risk under the 3rd FRTB Delegated Act for a three-year period

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams at EU banks should consider reviewing the EBA no-action letter to understand which aspects of the FRTB boundary between banking book and trading book, internal risk transfers, and related reporting are currently deprioritised for supervisory or enforcement action, and how this interacts with national competent authority expectations.
• Risk and regulatory capital teams may wish to map their existing and planned FRTB implementation (standardised and internal models approaches) against the technical considerations published by the EBA, focusing on how the 3rd FRTB Delegated Act’s institution-specific multiplier and related boundary rules affect market risk capital calculations from 2027-01-01.
• Firms should consider identifying whether they fall within the scope of "multiplier banks" under the Delegated Act and assess operational implications, including whether their systems and data architecture can support a single, harmonised boundary framework rather than multiple versions during the three-year transitional period.
• Supervisory reporting and Pillar 3 disclosure teams may wish to analyse the EBA’s clarifications on reporting requirements linked to the trading/non-trading book boundary and internal risk transfers to determine whether current templates, data points, and governance need adjustment ahead of the Delegated Act’s entry into force.
• Institutions participating in the EBA supervisory benchmarking exercise should consider reviewing the clarified treatment of institutions in that exercise under the revised FRTB framework, and ensure their benchmarking submissions and internal controls are aligned with the EBA’s technical considerations.
• Legal and regulatory policy teams may wish to monitor the scrutiny process of the 3rd FRTB Delegated Act by the European Parliament and Council, as the practical relevance of the no-action letter and technical considerations is contingent on the Delegated Act entering into force as adopted on 2026-06-04.

What changed

The EBA has formally issued a no-action letter recommending that competent authorities do not prioritise supervisory or enforcement action regarding provisions of the FRTB framework that govern: (i) the boundary between the banking book and the trading book; (ii) internal risk transfers between these books; and (iii) certain related reporting requirements, during the transition to the revised market risk regime.

Key dates

2026-08-03

ESAs publish final report and draft RTS proposing amendments to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/2251 bilateral margin requirements

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review current EMIR margin frameworks and inventories of uncleared OTC derivatives to identify portfolios and counterparties that are below the €8 billion initial margin threshold and could be affected by the proposed phase-out of initial margin exchange.
• Risk and collateral management functions should consider assessing the operational processes, documentation and systems currently used to calculate, call and exchange initial margin on legacy uncleared OTC derivative contracts, to understand the potential impact of a removal of these obligations on collateral flows and counterparty risk management.
• Legal and documentation teams may wish to map existing credit support annexes (CSAs) and collateral agreements to EMIR margin requirements, evaluating whether standard terms referencing Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/2251 would need amendment if the RTS are endorsed and the obligation to exchange initial margin for below-threshold portfolios is removed.
• Regulatory affairs and policy teams should consider monitoring the European Commission’s endorsement process and subsequent scrutiny by the European Parliament and Council, tracking any changes to the draft RTS text that could affect scope, thresholds or transitional arrangements.
• Firms subject to EMIR in multiple jurisdictions may wish to compare the proposed EU treatment of below-threshold initial margin portfolios with requirements in other key jurisdictions (e.g. US, UK) to ensure consistent cross-border collateral and margin policies and avoid regulatory arbitrage or misalignment.
• Compliance teams may wish to prepare briefing materials for senior management and boards outlining the anticipated simplification and burden reduction, alongside any residual risks or supervisory expectations that could accompany the phase-out of initial margin for below-threshold counterparties.

What changed

Under the current EU bilateral margin framework in Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/2251, counterparties with an aggregate average notional amount of non-centrally cleared derivatives below the €8 billion initial margin threshold specified in Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 (EMIR) are exempt from exchanging initial margin on new uncleared OTC derivative contracts, but must continue to exchange initial margin on existing contracts.

Key dates

2026-07-31

Joint ESA statement on ICT risks from frontier AI models in the EU financial sector published

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to map existing and planned uses of frontier AI models (including large language models and other advanced generative or predictive systems) to current ICT risk and cyber resilience frameworks under Regulation (EU) 2022/2554 (DORA) to demonstrate that these models are covered by documented risk assessments, controls and monitoring.
• Firms should consider reviewing governance arrangements for frontier AI, including board and senior management oversight, clear accountability, and integration of AI-related ICT risks into the firm’s risk appetite, risk taxonomy and operational risk frameworks, with specific escalation and reporting lines.
• Risk and technology functions may wish to update ICT and cyber risk management policies to explicitly address frontier AI threats (e.g. prompt injection, model poisoning, data leakage, adversarial attacks) and to align detection, logging and incident response capabilities with the ESAs’ emphasis on prevention, detection and management of AI-related cyber risks.
• Operational resilience teams should consider conducting scenario analysis and testing around frontier AI incidents (such as compromised AI-enabled customer interaction tools or automated decision engines) to evidence the ability to maintain critical services in line with DORA requirements on ICT-related incident management and business continuity.
• Compliance and procurement teams may wish to review contracts and due diligence for critical ICT third‑party providers that supply or host frontier AI models, assessing how provider controls, service levels and incident processes meet DORA expectations and the ESAs’ focus on frontier AI risks.
• Supervisory engagement teams should consider preparing to discuss the firm’s frontier AI strategy, risk management and governance with competent authorities, using the ESA statement as a reference point for how existing supervisory expectations on ICT risk and cyber resilience are applied to AI use cases.
• Internal audit and second‑line control functions may wish to plan thematic reviews of frontier AI deployments to assess coverage of AI-specific ICT risks within existing control frameworks, including documentation quality, model oversight, and alignment with DORA and sectoral guidance.
• Firms should consider monitoring forthcoming ESA and national competent authority publications on frontier AI and DORA oversight activities, as the statement signals that supervisory practices and expectations in this area are evolving and may be further operationalised.

What changed

The publication introduces a consolidated supervisory expectation that frontier AI models be treated explicitly as a source of ICT and cyber risk within existing EU operational resilience and ICT risk management frameworks, rather than as a separate technology domain. It emphasises the need for robust governance, risk management, and controls around the prevention, detection and management of cyber risks stemming from frontier AI, including model governance, validation, monitoring and incident handling.

Key dates

2026-07-31

Launch of the public consultation on DPM 2.1 and publication of naming conventions for metadata used in reporting

2026-09-30 Deadline

Deadline for submitting comments to the DPM 2.1 public consultation

2023-06-01

Publication month of DPM Standard 2.0 by EBA and EIOPA, establishing the current baseline data dictionary standard

2024-03-01

Establishment of the DPM Alliance joint governance framework by EBA, EIOPA and ECB to extend DPM to ECB statistical reporting

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to review the DPM 2.1 factsheet and the published naming conventions to understand proposed changes in metadata versioning, logical data model support and naming structures, and how these could impact existing COREP, FINREP, resolution and insurance reporting implementations.
• Regulatory reporting and technology teams should consider mapping current data dictionaries and reporting taxonomies (including those used for CRR/CRD prudential reports, BRRD/SRB resolution reports and EIOPA insurance and pensions reports) against the DPM 2.1 metamodel to assess the scale of future migration effort and potential system changes.
• Firms should consider engaging in the consultation process, either directly or via industry bodies, to provide feedback on the practicality of the proposed metamodel and naming conventions, particularly where they affect multi-framework reporting or large-scale data integration projects.
• Compliance and regulatory change functions may wish to flag DPM 2.1 internally as a strategic development in EU reporting architecture and ensure it is reflected in medium-term reporting transformation programmes, including planning for alignment with the ESCB Integrated Reporting Framework (IReF).
• Reporting vendors and in-house IT teams should consider evaluating whether their current regulatory reporting tools and data models can support DPM 2.1’s enhanced versioning and logical data model capabilities, and identify potential design changes needed to remain aligned with future EBA, EIOPA and ECB requirements.
• Supervisory liaison and public policy teams may wish to monitor subsequent EBA, EIOPA, ECB and SRB communications following the close of the consultation for indications of timelines when DPM 2.1 and the naming conventions will become expected or mandatory for specific reporting frameworks.

What changed

The DPM Alliance is consulting on DPM 2.1, an updated version of the DPM metadata model that introduces enhanced metadata versioning and extends the metamodel to host logical data models, with the explicit objective of supporting integrated European reporting across all regulatory frameworks in the financial sphere. The consultation also covers newly published naming conventions that set out a common approach for naming metadata used in reporting, designed to ensure consistent use of the common data dictionary across regulatory reporting frameworks.

Key dates

2026-07-24

EBA published the draft technical package for reporting framework 4.4 and opened the consultation

2026-08-24 Deadline

Deadline for stakeholders to submit comments and suggestions on the draft technical package 4.4 and new glossary

2026-09-30

EBA expects to publish the final technical package for reporting framework 4.4

2026-12-31

First reference date for amended Pillar 3 ESG, equity and shadow banking disclosures; technical amendments for resolution planning, MREL decisions, Pillar 3 disclosure templates; and AMLA eligibility templates

2027-03-31

First reference date for new IFRS 18-aligned FINREP templates and FRTB-related disclosure templates

2027-12-31

First reference date for Pillar 3 ESG, equity and shadow banking disclosures for SNCIs

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to assess the draft 4.4 package against current reporting architecture, especially where FINREP, Pillar 3, FRTB, resolution planning, MREL, or AMLA templates rely on local mapping or vendor implementation.
• Firms may wish to review the new IFRS 18-aligned FINREP templates and identify any chart-of-accounts, data lineage, or consolidation changes needed ahead of the 2027-03-31 first reference date.
• Reporting teams may wish to map the updated Pillar 3 ESG, equity exposure, and shadow banking disclosures to the 2026-12-31 reporting cycle, and to 2027-12-31 for SNCIs.
• Institutions may wish to compare their DPM 1.0 to DPM 2.0 conversion controls against the new glossary conversion file and plan for taxonomy or validation rule changes in downstream reporting tools.
• Affected firms may wish to submit comments on the draft technical package and glossary by 2026-08-24 if they have implementation concerns, data gaps, or interpretation issues.
• Compliance functions may wish to monitor the expected September 2026 final publication for changes to validation rules, AML eligibility elements, and the AMLA risk assessment 2027 templates.

What changed

The draft technical package for release 4.4 includes validation rules, the Data Point Model, XBRL taxonomies, and a new conversion file between DPM 1.0 and the DPM 2.0 glossary. It introduces amendments to the ITS on Pillar 3 disclosures on ESG risks, equity exposures and shadow banking exposures, with first reference dates of 2026-12-31 and 2027-12-31 for SNCIs. It also adds new IFRS 18-aligned FINREP templates, with a first reference date of 2027-03-31, and integrates FRTB-related disclosure templates into the DPM, also with a first reference date of 2027-03-31.

Key dates

2026-07-23

EBA launches consultations on draft ITS on depositor information, ITS on information exchange, RTS on DGS payouts of client funds deposits, and Guidelines on investment of available financial means under DGSD3

2026-09-21 Deadline

Registration deadline (12:00 CEST) for public hearing on all four regulatory products

2026-09-24

Public hearing on the four DGSD3-related regulatory products (10:00–13:00 CEST)

2026-10-23 Deadline

Deadline for submission of comments to the four consultation papers

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams at EU credit institutions should consider reviewing existing depositor information sheets, account-opening documentation and ongoing communications to assess alignment with the emerging harmonised formats and content envisaged by the draft ITS on depositor information, particularly for merger and failure scenarios.
• DGSs and banks may wish to map current data flows and reporting processes for covered deposits, available financial means and bank failure events against the proposed ITS on information exchange, to identify gaps in data granularity, timeliness, and standardisation that could require system and process changes.
• Firms that hold client funds in pooled or intermediary deposit accounts (such as investment firms or payment institutions) should consider analysing how client identification and segregation data are captured and shared with DGSs, in light of the draft RTS on client funds that aim to ensure accurate and timely reimbursement of underlying clients and avoidance of duplicate payouts.
• DGS operators and finance teams may wish to review investment policies, risk limits, eligible instruments and liquidity management frameworks for DGS financial means, to anticipate adjustments needed to comply with the forthcoming Guidelines on diversification, low risk and liquidity, including readiness to support resolution financing within the DGSD3 mandate.
• All affected stakeholders should consider preparing internal positions and impact assessments and submit consultation responses to the EBA by the stated deadline, highlighting operational challenges, data availability issues, and any potential conflicts with existing national frameworks for depositor protection and crisis management.
• Risk and treasury functions in banks may wish to engage with DGSs and supervisors to understand how enhanced reporting on covered deposits and DGS financial means under the ITS on information exchange could affect crisis-preparedness expectations, stress-testing assumptions and disclosure practices.
• Legal and regulatory affairs teams should consider monitoring the progression of these four draft instruments alongside the remaining eight technical standards and guidelines mandated by DGSD3, to plan for a coordinated implementation programme once final texts and application dates are confirmed.

What changed

The publication launches consultations on four draft regulatory products mandated by DGSD3: (i) Implementing Technical Standards on depositor information, which define harmonised content and format for depositor information sheets at account opening and on a regular basis, and specify communication requirements in special situations such as bank mergers or failures; (ii) Implementing Technical Standards on information exchange between credit institutions, Deposit Guarantee Schemes (DGSs) and other relevant authorities, introducing standardised procedures, templates and minimum information...

Key dates

2026-07-17

EBA published the final draft RTS and ITS on material acquisitions, material transfers, mergers and divisions under the CRD

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to map proposed acquisition, transfer, merger, and division workflows against the draft minimum-information template and identify which data points are already held by competent authorities.
• Firms may wish to review whether planned intra-group transactions could qualify for the simplified treatment described in the draft RTS, including any discretion not to assess certain transactions.
• Groups planning mergers or divisions may wish to check which documentation can be reused from Company Law Directive processes and where CRD-specific supplements will still be needed.
• Legal and regulatory teams may wish to assess how multiple-notification scenarios are handled today and whether internal controls need to align with the proposed harmonised terminology and coordination timelines.
• Firms may wish to prepare for supervisory coordination across jurisdictions by identifying the authorities likely to be involved in cross-border transactions and the likely sequence of notifications.

What changed

The EBA’s final draft RTS would specify the minimum information to be provided for material acquisitions, material transfers of assets and liabilities, mergers, and divisions, together with a common assessment methodology for the prudential scrutiny of those transactions. The draft RTS also streamline notifications by excluding information already held by competent authorities and by allowing reliance on documentation prepared under Directive (EU) 2017/1132 (the Company Law Directive) for mergers and divisions.

Key dates

2026-07-17

EBA launches consultation on amendments to ITS for the 2027 market risk benchmarking exercise

2026-07-27 Deadline

Deadline (16:00 CEST) for registration to the public hearing on the consultation

2026-07-28

Public hearing on the consultation (14:00–15:30 CEST)

2026-09-03 Deadline

Deadline for submission of comments to the EBA consultation on the 2027 market risk benchmarking ITS amendments

2027-01-01

Application date of the European Commission’s FRTB Delegated Act referenced in the amended ITS

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams at EU credit institutions using market risk internal models or the CRR3 Alternative Standardised Approach may wish to review the consultation paper and annexes (booking instructions, relevant dates, instruments and portfolios, template instructions, and templates) to understand proposed changes to the 2027 benchmarking data collection and reporting requirements.
• Firms applying or planning to apply CRR2 Internal Model Approach for market risk should consider the implications of the resumption of CRR2-IMA data collection and assess whether existing reporting processes and systems can be reactivated or need updating to meet the revised ITS templates.
• Institutions intending to use the CRR3 Alternative Standardised Approach for market risk may wish to assess the impact of being newly in scope of the EBA market risk benchmarking exercise, including internal governance, data availability, and operational readiness for participation in the second half of 2027.
• Firms that anticipate using the CRR3 Alternative Internal Model Approach may wish to monitor the postponement of AIMA data collection and evaluate how the uncertainty in the effective implementation date interacts with their internal model development timelines and supervisory expectations.
• Regulatory and reporting functions may wish to map current market risk reporting templates to the proposed reorganised and rationalised templates, identifying data gaps and system changes required once the final ITS enter into force.
• Compliance teams may wish to coordinate with risk and reporting teams to prepare a response to the EBA consultation by the 3 September 2026 deadline, particularly on practical aspects of template design, data availability, and timing of the 2027 benchmarking exercise.
• Institutions newly included in scope by virtue of using CRR3 ASA should consider whether additional internal documentation, model validation, and supervisory engagement are needed ahead of the second-half 2027 benchmarking exercise, given the EBA’s intention to adopt the final ITS earlier to give such institutions more preparation time.

What changed

The consultation proposes amendments to the ITS on supervisory benchmarking of market risk models for the 2027 exercise, updating the data collection framework and reporting templates used by institutions and competent authorities under Article 78 of Directive 2013/36/EU (CRD). The scope of the market risk benchmarking exercise would be expanded to include institutions applying the CRR3 Alternative Standardised Approach (ASA) for market risk, irrespective of whether they also use an Internal Model Approach (IMA).